Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Now I'll call the June 26, 2026 meeting of the St. Paul Planning Commission to order. First order of business is roll call.

Commissioner Grill? Present. Commissioner Hackey?

Present.

Commissioner Holtz?

Here.

Commissioner Johnson-Becker?

Here.

Commissioner Martinson?

Here.

Commissioner Presley? Commissioner Riley? Here. Commissioner Starling? Here. Commissioner Taguioff? Here. Commissioner Thomas? Here.

Wonderful, thank you. It looks like then we have roll call completed. Next up is approval of the May 29th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Do I have a motion on the minutes?

So moved.

Motion by Commissioner Holtz. Do I have a second? Seconded by Commissioner Taguioff. Is there any discussion on the minutes? All right, seeing none, we'll move forward with the vote. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Any abstentions? All right, the minutes pass. First up today, we don't have any public hearings, so next up would be old business. That's the Planning Commission bylaws update, and I believe Chris Hong is here.

Good morning, everyone. I am here to present the Planning Commission bylaws updates since the February 20th vote. So the vast majority of these changes are all formatting that formatting changes that were needed because it was converted from like a typewriter or something like that. And so the The first copy of the bylaws that are in your packets is with all of the red lines and that includes like weird spacing issues and then the second version has the more like substantive changes and I thought I'd just go over them quickly because there aren't too many of them. So the first in articles two and three we updated language so that the position of the second vice chair was removed because we'll only have seven commissioners so it felt unnecessary so we just have a chair a vice chair and a secretary and In Article 4, we remove the information about the date and time of meetings in case we decide to take a vote to change the meeting date and time, and then we don't have to also update the bylaws at the same time. And since we had previously voted back in February to remove the requirement that the annual report be completed in January, I also removed the requirement that the report be submitted to the mayor and the city council by March 15th, since it might be March 15th when we get the annual report. Hopefully not, but... In Article 4, we're still talking about Article 4, in Article 4, Section 4 on quorum, remove the language of equivalent number to one or two because we're only ever going to have up to two alternates. So if three... members are missing we're not going to have three alternates because we're only going to have two alternates. In section five we updated it so instead of saying six or more excused absences it's six or more absences so excused or unexcused obviously. And section six, just update to say any member of the commission can call for a roll call vote, which is what we've been doing anyway. So, well, it's been suggested to the chair to call for a roll call vote. And also in Section 6, even though we just voted this last sentence in to include a a stipulation that commissioners need to state their reasoning for abstaining from a vote. We're removing that sentence because it's already in the Robert's Rules of Order. And so it is still required, but we're not putting it in the bylaws. And so that's it for now. Do we have any questions? Could you tell us?

Thank you. Just one. There's the regular meetings and special meetings. The way that tends to operate, I think, in these sorts of bylaws is that you define a regular meeting and say we have to meet on this cadence or whatever, and then the special meetings are sort of for emergencies or other things like that. And obviously when removing the stipulation for every Friday, the word regular meetings is doing a lot of work. And I think Those two clauses together are supposed to prevent a situation where we could for example Call a meeting with an hour notice and call it a regular meeting and then sort of you know vote something through without Public notice I wonder I wonder whether regular meetings Do you have notice requirements of their own or anything in there that the the essentially protects us without that language?

Just want to clarify that's the case Thanks chair Commissioner All of our meetings have to be noticed, even a special meeting. I think a few months ago, or maybe at the end of last year, we had a special meeting in order to make a deadline for a project, and we had to schedule that with the proper noticing. So any meeting that we have is properly noticed.

Then I suppose my question is, should we remove the language in special meetings requiring at least three days of notice? If notice applies regardless, then do we need the notice in that paragraph?

I think.

So the discussion between regular meetings and special meetings and notice in both of those.

Chair and Commissioner Taggap. No matter what it says in the bylaws, We have to abide by open meeting law and the state's noticing and the city's noticing requirements. So the three days is a bit moot since usually we have to give, you know, we have to do 10 days public notice. We have to get something onto the schedule. It's usually, you know, like a two week type of situation to get anything scheduled. So that might be, you know, something that could be removed or could stay but be moot.

Got it, thank you.

Commissioner Starling. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Hong, I have a, I think, similar impulse to Commissioner Tagioff, though in the section on Article 8 on amendment, where it says the bylaws may be amended, assuming that the amendment has been emailed or mailed to commission members, and I have some concern about the public notice dimension of that amendment. I guess my question is, should this language also have, could slash should this language also have provided that the proposed amendment has been posted publicly and emailed and mailed?

Director. Thanks, Chair, Commissioner Starling. I think this is similar to my previous response where we must abide by all of the noticing laws and I think sometimes the actual practice and laws and what is in the bylaws conflict. Because these bylaws originate in such an old, outdated way, they're pre-internet, we've done our best to update them. But I don't think that the bylaws need to be more strict than our procedures, but the bylaws could reflect our procedures. Does that make sense?

I think that makes sense. I think I am reacting to the precision that is in this language of emailed or mailed at least five days. relative to I think the overall intent of public notice. So when we get to amendments, I might suggest that perhaps this should be removed and said, provided that the proposed amendment has been communicated consistent with public notice procedures.

I'm just making a note as we go through it. Yeah, Commissioner Holtz.

Chair, sort of in that same vein, and I think agreeing with Starling and maybe even taking Commissioner Starling and even taking a little further, I mean, bylaws may be amended at any regular meeting with five days' notice. And honestly, I mean, these are our bylaws, right? It seems like they should be not super easy to change and be a little process-laden. And if we're... individually up to me, I would be, you know, if we're going to have a bylaw change, it probably should be read out at a meeting and then eligible for change at the next meeting. In other words, hey, these are the changes. And then on the next meeting, we can adopt them. That way, nothing can ever slide through, you know, in the subtly on a bylaw. And I think they're important enough that sort of that ought to be a standard. And I frankly have used. used it in the past when it's not as such, right? In order to change bylaws. And I'm not sure that's a really good idea. So anyways, that would be my comment on here. It'd be like, hey, we'd have to have like a first reading at a planning commission meeting, and then at the commission meeting after that, they could be modified.

I see a couple other questions. I just have a question for staff before we go to those. Do we know what the other boards and commissions have for some of these items? Like relating to notices and amendments and things like that. Like I'm wondering if there's a way to just be sort of in step with how the other boards and commissions are operating.

Chair, I don't have that information offhand.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Tagiaff and then Commissioner Tagiaff. Maybe Commissioner Martinson.

I'll speak just once. Jay, I think coming back to these points, right, to me, if our position is that these requirements are already regulated by other laws, ordinances, or city, I think the problem with putting them directly, conflicting words directly into the bylaws is that when people are trying to decode what the rule is, typically they will refer to the most sort of proximate statute or thing first, and only go out if there's no language or if the language refers to somewhere else. So if I were, as a member of the public or, frankly, as a lawyer, reading these, I would say, oh, this is the requirement. I wouldn't then look out at city statutes or other statutes and say, well, maybe there's a conflicting requirement somewhere else. So I think that's where the tension is coming from with both the language clause and potentially the notice clause that Commissioner Starling raised. So I wanted to point out that I would be for... Language that either emits those things if they already covered elsewhere or aligns them and you know explicitly refers and says you know Notice as required in city statutes or something like that.

I think would be probably a way to resolve some of these questions I know I didn't cover your question holes, but So just to sort of summarize the areas and where we have questions or areas where people maybe are considering edits and It's in regular meetings, special meetings and amendments so far. Commissioner Martinson.

I have a number of substantive suggestions for edits, but I was not sure if I should be addressing them to staff or if I should be addressing it in the discussion part of our voting today. So wherever it's most appropriate, I'll add my commentary.

Okay. Are there other questions for staff before we sort of get into the discussion piece?

Oh, sorry, questions for staff. I'll wait.

Commissioner Starling.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Question for staff is what is the timeline of this document after this body approves it?

I don't think I understand your question.

Does it go to the city council? Does it need or is our vote the end of the process?

The director will answer the question. The bylaws end here.

Thank you.

All right. Seeing no other questions for staff, I think we can move into discussion. I would say maybe stay close. Okay. I know there are several folks that have thoughts and feelings for discussion. Maybe let's start with Commissioner Martinson since I know you have items and you haven't spoken yet.

Thank you, Chair, and some of these are topics that I probably would have brought up earlier, but it didn't enter my thinking until we had to be revisiting bylaws in another body on which I sit for reasons that I'm not happy about. But it did cause me to rethink some things here as well. So I bring them today with apologies for not having brought them sooner. So bylaws, as has been referenced already, are sort of defining the life of a body, of a democratic body. And they have both prescriptive elements and they need to have some proscriptive elements as well. The prescriptive elements define our life together here around this table and the deliberations that we engage in with the public and the decisions that we recommend to the city council. But the proscriptive things are to prevent certain things like overthrow or overtake of the body by malign elements. And so I think I think we've seen, and I'll reference national events, that there's certain dangers in a unitary executive. And so I think some of this puts a little bit too much power in the hands, I think, of the chair and the director. And so I want to reference that, but I want other, there's some other topics in here as well. So I'm just going to go down. They're not, these aren't necessarily in an order. They're just in the order that they occur in the document. So I think in article one, We don't have any statements currently about the number of commissioners nor the number of alternates. I know we've discussed it and we've talked about having two, but I don't see them. I don't see those numbers referenced anywhere here, nor do I see any discussion about the respective powers and duties of primary seats versus alternate seats. And that's something that we might want to have explicitly in Article 1. Going down to Article 4. So this is to the concern about the concentration of power in the hands of the chair. So the chair or the planning commission, so under regular meetings, the chair or of the planning commission together with the planning director shall determine the agenda for planning commission meetings. So that concentrates all agenda setting power in the hands of a chair and the director, but it leaves little room for the voice of other commissioners who may want to put items on the agenda. And so I'd propose that other commission members be allowed to propose agenda items via motion or written request with five days notice, for instance. So the language might be, any commissioner may request an item be placed on the agenda by submitting the request in writing at least five days prior to the meeting. Such requests should be included unless a majority of the commission votes otherwise. So that puts agenda setting power slightly back in the hands of the rest of the commission. Doesn't damage the power that the chair and the director have, I don't think. Also in section four, and this is what started drawing my attention to this, was there's reference to the conditions under which a member can be removed from the body. And currently it only references, unless excused by the chair of the commission, the chair shall recommend that the mayor request the resignation of such member from the commission And that's in the section on absence from meetings. So absence from meetings is currently the only condition that's referenced that may warrant removal from the body. Inadequate meeting attendance is, you know, that's fine as a potential for removal. And that power probably can be, you know, rested with the chair with the approval of the mayor. But two points. First, we may want to include a broader power of removal for cause. in which case we would need to define a clear standard of misconduct that would have to be found. Second, removal for cause and possibly for lack of attendance should probably be determined by a vote of the entire commission, not to be taken just as an action of the chair. Okay, so that's that suggestion. There's also, and I don't know where this would go, but there's no section that codifies how the public may participate in our deliberations. we've had some discussion about the fact that that's also dictated by statute and other requirements that we have to meet and maybe we just need to reference those but and obviously when we have a public hearing the ground rules for comment are typically announced by the chair but have you know having the procedures codified in the bylaws wouldn't be a bad idea for purposes of transparency to the public i think um and i think Oh, the amendments, yeah. So amendments and bylaws, I agree with Member Holst that they should be hard to change. This shouldn't be a simple, easy thing because they are the life of the body and they are the place that someone's going to go to manipulate. if they're trying to engage in a hostile takeover of that body. We've seen it, some of us have participated in it. So it's to be guarded against. And so requiring a simple majority is maybe fine, but in other bodies that I've served on, it's required the two thirds vote of the body in order to change the bylaws. So that's something that I would like us to consider. And I think those are my comments.

I'm going to go to Commissioner Riley and then additional folks.

So I have three comments, one of which is really a question for city attorney. I believe that statute is pretty clear on some of the aspects of how planning commissions operate. And so I think the first thing that you brought up may not apply, so that's a question for Josh to look at, then I think I agree with your two-thirds for changing the bylaws. I think that's really thoughtful. And I do not think that anything that might have to change in order to accommodate changing public practices or interests by the executive, who is the mayor, So that is why the mayor has the power to make those decisions. That is the chief executive officer of this city, and all of us are appointed by that person. That person is the only person who actually has the power to make that decision, and that's, I believe, why that's written into these bylaws. we should not have anything to do with whether people are removed from this body or not because it is not our authority to invite them on nor is it our authority to to confirm them here it is the mayor's so that's i think an aspect of that but i do agree bylaws should not be changed often it should be hard for them to change and we should not include procedural items in our bylaws that may have to change in order to accommodate the way the public and the mayor and other entities like to participate or change things particularly when it comes to public participation because that's an ever-changing thing and I certainly don't want to hamstring the community's ability to participate in this body nor our ability to work with the community nor the department's ability to work thank you Commissioner Riley other discussion items

Just one follow-up. I agree with your Commissioner Takeoff's earlier comments around aligning the bylaws with state. It seems like we've changed our city code more than a couple of times to make sure that it aligns perfectly with what the state ordinances are. And so I just would like to send a little support saying that, yeah, I think we should align, even if there is a state law might say A and our bylaws say B, I think we should try to keep those two aligned whenever possible. For clarity.

So regular meetings, special meetings, amendments, it feels like there's, I'm just trying to get a sort of a read on consensus. It feels like there are, it feels like there's general consensus that those are areas where people maybe would like to reopen things. There are, let's see what else we got. And in the amendment space, the two-thirds vote sounds, seems like some people had some interest in that. unclear about overall feelings. Reasons for removal as a place maybe for more discussion and that whole space, because to Commissioner Riley's point, we are limited in what we would do in that space. A lot of that work is reserved for the mayors and the mayor's office. And public participation, some of that is still sort of up for discussion. And then there's some conversations about making sure we align with the overall state rules for planning commissions, making sure these fit in with that, which I'm sure staff did the work on, but maybe hearing that would be helpful. And then I would also be curious around how we fit into other bylaws existing within the city. just because we're all operating sort of under the same structure. I realize we have specific planning rules, but making sure that maybe we're not wildly out of step with those I think would be helpful. Given the sheer number of things on the table today and we have another item, I don't know if this is a place where and maybe Ms. Hong might be willing to come up. before I suggest anything. But given sort of the sheer number of items discussed today, I don't think we have a tight timeline on this. Is that something you or the director can

Oh, there's not exactly a timeline on this. These are rules for governing yourself. So I can do some research on the topics that were brought up and presented at another meeting.

Okay. We haven't made a motion or anything. I just want to make sure we weren't in a place where you were getting a lot of heat to make sure that this was moving quickly. And obviously, you don't want to spend all of your time working on our bylaws. So I'd like this to be maybe the last of our extensions if we can do it. But I think there's a lot of valid things that folks have brought up today. I also, just as a pet note, since we're doing it, The parliamentarian, if you can see if that could also be made to the vice chair.

I'd be curious.

I'm sorry, what was that? If the parliamentarian could be the vice chair, that would be fine as well. Well, it's too much has been vested in the chair, I heard, so I just want to spread it out. But yeah, it seems like there's a lot of items, so I don't know if that's something, it's obviously up to you all to make a motion and see what you're comfortable with, but I just wanted to make sure staff was comfortable. Commissioner Holtz, or sorry, Commissioner Hackney.

Thank you, thank you, Chair. I don't necessarily know what my position on this would be, but just as a clarification, it sounds like What Commissioner Martinson is saying is not that we're taking authority from the mayor. I mean, the language is the chair shall recommend that the mayor request the resignation. It sounds like he's just simply saying, why not put it to a vote? So it doesn't substantively change it. It just simply disperses the power. And obviously correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm misinterpreting, but that seems like that's the nature of the request.

I think that's something that staff can look at as well and bring back.

I also wanted to clarify for Commissioner Martinson, the number of commissioners is in the city code and that was amended last year. And so if any changes were made to that, it would need to be through an ordinance change.

Okay, thank you for that. So I'm wondering if we can, I like it when, if something is codified elsewhere, if it's referenced in the document. So if there's, I mean, it would be simply just to say the composition of this body is determined by this section of the city code and then reference it, because then I can go look it up.

And I would bet other members of the public would too.

So thanks for that. I think that's along the same lines as having reference to other controlling statute or ordinance that dictate our behavior.

I might have seen Commissioner Starling, but I'm also seeing Commissioner Riley. These may be dueling items.

I'm feeling like we are likely to ask that this come back to us within amendments or proposed language to address some number of these concerns. And then I am feeling uneasy about whether or not it comes back to us and then we would vote on it at the next meeting relative to settling on the language and then having the formal adoption vote at the next meeting because I am sympathetic to Commissioner Holst's comments that bylaws should not be easily amended and adjusted. And coming into this meeting, I looked at the dimensions that are capitalizing certain words and changing the spacing. Housekeeping, I'm comfortable with that, but to the extent that I think we are making some substantive changes, I would like to propose a, I think I am actively proposing a two-step process from here.

so um i think staff would be comfortable or the director would be comfortable if we brought if they brought options back with research um and did it more as a presentation and then a subsequent meeting with um with a vote if that's if that fits uh the request um and i think when when the motion is made maybe we can we can include that commissioner riley

Thank you, Chair. I was going to say something similar to Commissioner Starling, but make a specific request that when this comes back, that we have in its entirety the existing language from the Code of Ordinance that describes the Planning Commission and the ordinance that establishes the Planning Commission, because that is distinct from the bylaws, which are sort of optional. We don't have to have bylaws. We're not a nonprofit. So I'll just make that clear. And then I'd also like any part of the city's charter that indicates that there's supposed to be a planning commission. I don't think that actually exists, but just in case there is, I think we should have that in front of us as well. And then the last bit might be helpful for staff to send out the portion of the League of Minnesota Cities handbook for planning commissioners that might help resolve a lot of the questions and concerns here. It's very valuable and I recommend we all have read it at some point serving on this body. But that also calls into question the statement that the planning director made that this stops here because I think that councils are supposed to adopt them. And this is a city of the first class that's a charter-based city, so I have no idea. But just to verify that that is accurate, that would be helpful too. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Riley. If anything, this discussion does prove how interested in the topic we all are and how well we want these to work. So I do appreciate that. With that, does anyone have a motion or more discussion?

Actually, I just wanted to solicit some kind of feedback on what kind of process you'd like to see for amendments.

Ms. Hong, do you mean to be put in the document? Correct. Thank you.

I think maybe we can provide it here if folks have it in the moment, but if you want to do some research and send it via email.

I mean, you all have my email as well, so you can always email that over to me.

I can probably state really quick. In other words, you're asking what the process ought to be if we have an amendment to the bylaws.

Is that correct?

Yeah. So, I mean, I kind of already touched on it, but it would be read out at a meeting and then voted on the next meeting, and then furthermore, it'd be a two thirds of the commission majority, like a super majority to make an amendment to the bylaws. So not two thirds of attendance, but two thirds of the body. So that would be what I would suggest. So.

Commissioner Riley.

Follow up question for Commissioner Holst. Yeah. Would that amendment be true for the rules of procedure as well as the bylaws themselves? I'm just talking about the bylaws.

Or just for the bylaws? Just for the bylaws.

Okay, so rules of procedure could be simple majority. Yes. Thank you.

Anything else? No. All right. Would anybody be interested in making a motion? Commissioner Starling.

Thank you, Madam Chair. When this body fully settles into its permanent number of members, how many is that?

Seven plus two. Nine. Seven plus two alternates, but only seven voting at an opportunity.

So with that, I'm playing out in my head that the two thirds vote would then have to be six out of seven.

It's a great question, Commissioner Starling.

Chair, if I may? Yeah. So I don't think we can have a vote with more than seven people at any given time, because the way it's set up is seven people are eligible to vote, right? So I think it would be five out of seven. But I think this is an important point, right? Because it's like, what is it? Is it nine? Is it seven? What's our denominator here, right? And certainly when I was thinking about it, I was thinking of two-thirds of seven, you know, which would give us five. But we should probably have some clarification on that, right?

That's not two-thirds, though. Yes, two-thirds is more than five. Two-thirds of seven is more than five. Oh, is it? Yes. The data folks in here. Six is four.

Six-seven. Sorry.

Okay, I... in the interest of keeping things moving. Perhaps we put a pin and we think about the intent and we look at what a couple options are there.

I mean, I could just say super majority and then whatever the number is doesn't matter. Right, for the record. You have to define.

Five is 71% of seven, which is more than 2 3rds.

I think for the purposes of this discussion, we should flag it and make sure that what we're doing fits well into the bylaws and maybe is appropriate for what other bodies do. That are seven. There are enough in this situation that there should be an example.

I'll draft some options and present them to you all.

Wonderful. Thank you so much. Commissioner Tay, yeah.

I think if we're ready, maybe we could propose to lay this item over until such time as staff being able to propose the suggested amendments to the draft in response to the discussion today.

And perhaps allow time for a presentation.

Of course.

Second.

Is that a motion? Yeah, I think it's a motion. A motion by Commissioner Taggiaff, a second by Commissioner Riley. Is there discussion on that motion? I'm just going to say one thing. If you have further thoughts or feelings, please send them to staff before the following discussion, just so that they've got time to try to incorporate them into their presentation, and so we can keep this thing rolling, because while it is important, I want us to get it right, I also want to make sure that Chris's year is not our bylaws. All right, thank you. Any other items for discussion? All right, we'll move forward with the vote. All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed? Any abstentions? All right, the item passes.

And this is laid over.

This item is laid over. Next up is Gulf Corps zoning text amendments recommendation to city council. And Nellie Jerome is here for that.

Okay, good morning. This is a golf course zoning text amendment. I'll just go through the proposed amendments, the background about how this is coming to you, and then the staff recommendation. So these are the proposed text amendments. It's just amendments to lines C and D. It is removal of the restriction on mini golf, and then it is an adjustment The previous wording prohibits lighting for night use and the proposed wording is golf courses that are equipped with lighting for night use shall not operate after 10 p.m. There is an alternative version of the text amendment that I put at everyone's chair that the alternative wording is in red and then there's an alternative resolution that both of these proposed amendments were reviewed by CAO so They're both possibilities, but there's an alternative for you to review a Little bit of background the City Council is initiating this amendment And they are forwarding the proposed amendments to Planning Commission for your review it is based on a request from the Department of Parks and Rec to update their operational plan for Highland golf course and The changes would allow for a regular closing of 9 p.m. and then a one hour cleanup and then the lights will be all out by 10 p.m. It is unclear why the current wording is the way it is. We found an old version of the zoning code from over 50 years ago that still had this requirement of no lighting and no mini golf. There are no similar restrictions for other outdoor sports. There's a lot of lighting throughout the city at parks. And I'll also note that Como Golf Course has lights that they use in the winter for cross-country skiing and various winter activities. The proposed changes do not conflict with the 2040 plan. And they also do not have any effect on the existing lighting regulations. which apply to all properties in the city and require downcast lighting and no spillover and similar standards. So there's no changes to that. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Chapter 65.230, which was initiated by City Council. Alternatively, there is the alternative text that you could discuss or make other changes or recommend denial to City Council. So that's the gist of it. Andy Rodriguez is here from the Parks Department if you have questions, but I can answer questions.

It also looks like maybe we got a letter from the Highland District Council.

Yes, yes, that did come in. Oh shoot, I forgot to pull it up here too. Did everyone get that letter as well?

Do you want my copy?

I can't buy emails.

I'll flag that you have a question while she's pulling it up. Commissioner Riley has a question, but if you have anything else on the HTC letter.

Not at this time, but I will. I'll still pull it up.

Hi, Anton. Are you here to provide some comments and staff? Yes.

Are you here to provide comments or to answer?

No, I can answer questions too. Okay, great.

Commissioner Riley, you had a question?

I just had a question about the comprehensive plan consistency. I'm super in favor of this, but I was wondering if there's a more specific economic development plan policy that could be added to the thing associated with how parks are a valuable part of our, people come here to recreate and there's an economic benefit to folks coming here for that. I can't remember though whether we ever got to that point in the 2040 plan and perhaps Land Use 7 is the one that policy seven is the one that gets us there, but I just thought that might be a nice thing to address. There's also the clause about, you know, strong parks. I guess parks 25 has that economic benefit in it, but I mean, it's just a thought if there's a concern from anybody at all, clearly there doesn't seem to be. If we could sort of highlight that, some of the equity and economic benefits associated with green space and access to recreation spaces year round. Otherwise, I think this is great. Super excited. Good job. Make things better.

Thanks, Commissioner Riley. Commissioner Taggaff.

Yeah, I just want to understand this pitch and putt thing a little bit more. Obviously, the lighting seems to make a lot of sense. I am curious about kind of how we tend to regulate other similar uses to what would be a miniature golf course, because I understand I did a little bit of digging, and it seems that... The idea might have been that a golf course reads a bit more like a park and therefore is okay in a residential area, whereas a miniature golf course might feel a bit more like a Topgolf and might be more intense use or something like that. I'm curious about how we regulate things like that, other outdoor sports. If somebody wanted to build, say, a Topgolf or something similar, would this allow them to do so in the middle of a residential area, whereas previously we might not allow that? I think that's my, it's the, I guess, Chester's fence, you know, like understand why something is there before we say, yeah, this sounds great.

Yes, Commissioner Tate-Gaff, Chair. Any new golf course would require a conditional use permit. So this, the mini golf wouldn't, you know, have anything to do with like a top golf or similar implants use. they would have to go through a conditional use permit process and probably others. I don't know why they were banned in the first place. There is no plans to have a miniature golf course on any of the current golf courses. They are allowed unrelated to golf courses, so there's just a ban of mini golf at golf courses.

Okay, so we could, for example, have what's called a mini-golf in a residential area anyway, just not as part of an existing golf course.

I can answer that. Yeah, that's correct. I mean, we have miniature golf as part of Can't Can't Wonderland inside a building. I think in this case, just the research... I was able to do this very slim, but for example, like the pitch and putt, which is specifically called out here, was a shorter version of golf. It was like 100 yards or something like that, maximum per hole. And you only have three clubs. So I was trying to figure out what the impact would be there, where we'd want to ban it. And to me, it seemed like there could be equally something like golf purists at the time didn't want to see that encroaching on and taking up the space that they could be used for like a real golf course. So it didn't make sense to me in terms like a zoning. limitation we don't care really in terms of zoning if somebody's playing softball or t-ball on a baseball diamond it just seemed like why i had a lot of questions like you like why do we even care about this for zoning um and i think it was just a like a relic Of the time where somebody has some influence and managed to get a band, but I don't see like pitch and putt having some kind of Whatever some kind of impact that would you know hurt the community I

Yeah, I think that, if I may, I think that's how I'm seeing it too. I do want to make a tiny distinction. Pitch and putt, I think the language seems to suggest that pitch and putt is a miniature form of golf, whereas I think we're talking about crazy golf or whatever, which is, you know, the little, the Kangwan thing is like an amusement park thing. I think they're talking about like a smaller version of regular golf. or something like that, which is still sort of golf-like. I don't know. I'm just curious. Yeah. My god, thank you, Andy.

Yeah.

Good to see you all. Can you introduce yourself? You guys are awesome. You should work for the Parks Department.

Yeah, is this what the Parks and Rec Commission is like? Because we're all very interested now. Yeah. Can you introduce yourself?

We need commissioners on the Parks Commission, so let us know. A pitch and putt is a shortened version of golf, designed to be easier, more beginner-friendly, just like almost like a practice kind of situation. That's how I would describe it. Typically, most holes are very short, like 30 to 100 yards. We have one at Highland National that the first T program uses specifically for young people and then others that just want to practice. So very, very entry-level, small kind of setup.

Got it, that's really helpful. So it's not the little thing that kids play?

Correct.

Okay, cool. I think we're confused. No, that's wonderful. Thank you so much, Andy. This is really helpful.

Yeah, I'm happy to answer any other questions that you all have for me on this item.

While we have the director here, are there any other golf-related, golf lighting-related questions?

Just if I may. So golf courses that are equipped with lighting for night use shall not operate after 10 p.m. So is the point here to make sure that the golf course slash ski area is not being used after 10 p.m. or to make sure that the lights are off? Because I don't know that I'm super clear on that.

So I'd like the director to respond, but I think my understanding was that they would cease operations at 9 p.m. and the 10 p.m. would allow for staff to clean up and organize the facility.

That's correct. And just to clarify for you all, I know in the language it says golf course. At Highland, we are focusing specifically on the driving range. That is where the lighting is installed.

and maybe this question will come up, but for other facilities, other things outside of Highland, it would be incredibly cost prohibitive for sort of lights to start going up in every golf course across the city.

Correct. So if I may, if you don't have lights, it looks like we can operate till two o'clock in the morning and run a lot, but I can chime in on that and just say the parks close at 11.

So, um, It would require specific director approval to operate any form of park program after that time.

Okay.

Well, then I stand corrected to 11.

But still, if you don't have lighting, this doesn't apply to you. And I don't know if that was the intent.

Go ahead.

I suspect that the 10 p.m. has something to do with the city's noise ordinance. So that ceases, that means you, in the city, it's quiet time after 10 p.m., so this would allow enforcement of rowdy people on the golf course, lighted or not. I mean, I think there needs to be, I think there should be a terminus based on my experiences. There should be some sort of terminus, and this seems to make sense because of the noise ordinance.

Right, I'm saying that this says it doesn't apply to places that don't have lighting.

And just for context, it's always been a standard practice for us to cease operations around 9 o'clock.

It's the shall. The shall is probably the problem. I see what you're saying, though. Right. Yeah.

Just to clarify, and perhaps we can let the director go if there are no other questions specific. To him? All right, we may call you back up if something needs to be clarified.

Thank you so much.

So folks maybe have questions or discussion items related to the wording of D. Are there other areas or questions for staff for things that may be outside of that area?

Chair, I will say, too, that we're kind of in an unusual situation where council has proposed language to us, the edits to us, but planning commission is welcome to suggest edits back to city council. So if there are some edits like that that you'd like to suggest to them, that is fine.

Okay, maybe while we're on D, this is a good place for Nelly or Nelly and Josh to clarify the two versions of the language that are available for D before we maybe start proposing other things.

I was with you all, I thought it was vague as well. That's where the second version came from, trying to clear that up. Is it true that this ordinance 6523 regulates public and private golf courses? It's just not limited to public golf courses? And my concern was that it was vague and shall not, let me just say, what's the original? Shall not, shall not operate after 10 p.m. I mean, if they have like a restaurant and bar, technically mean they have to close at 10, so.

So there's an alternate set of language with red text that should be part of your packet that was proposed by the city attorney end of day yesterday. So I think that was the updated proposed language. If there are some questions with the updated proposed language, then maybe that's a good place for questions for staff for clarification. if any of the folks raising questions have additional questions for staff or we could move into discussion if you wanna discuss amending or changing the language.

This is the one I was talking about when I was talking about noise ordinance and outdoor. I think this is very, I assumed this was where we were going because you can't have an event in a golf course inside the building if you have the other language. So this is the language that seems to make the most sense.

So maybe, just because people have a couple versions of them floating around, I don't know, Nellie, Mr. Ohm, if you'd like to read the updated language or pull it up, whatever might be easiest for you.

Yeah. So I have the language with the red text. And the language on the screen is the proposed amendment. So the proposed amendment is golf courses that are equipped with lighting for night use shall not operate after 10 PM. And the alternative, with the red text that you all received just today, is golf courses that are equipped with lighting for night use shall not operate outdoor activities after 10 PM. And this applies to all golf courses, private, public. And there are, I think, four. public golf courses and one private golf course in the city currently.

Thank you.

And can you clarify the action today? Because I know it's a recommendation.

Yes.

And we came in with something, so just maybe for folks.

Yeah, I can always pull it up. The staff recommendation is that the Planning Commission recommend approval of these amendments to golf course standards and conditions in Zoning Code Chapter 65.230, which were initiated by City Council. So there will be a public hearing at City Council, but today you're simply making a recommendation back to Council.

So if we want to include the red language, we would recommend approval with changes.

With amendments, yes.

Okay, thank you for that. Commissioner Tagliaf.

I wonder if it might be possible to address Commissioner Holt's concern by just striking the terms that are equipped with lighting for night use. So it would read golf courses shall not operate outdoor activities after 10. Whether or not, essentially.

Matt, I think we could do, I mean, the city council asked us to look at this and give them feedback on it. And I think this thing needs some help because I just, there's just kind of a lot of problems with it. You know, what truly is the intent? Do we want to make sure we, people aren't doing activities outside after 10 p.m., yes or no? Do we want to have lighting on at night, yes or no? Do we want to allow indoor activities at golf courses like the Como Golf Course Pavilion or whatever it's called? It's not the pavilion, but the Como, the club up there, yes or no, right? And then should we even call it a golf course if we're using it? I mean, how do we want to reference this for wintertime skiing? I think we all kind of understand that we're going cross-country skiing on golf courses, right? But I think we want to have a little better clarification on what it is exactly that we want to make sure doesn't happen. Is this a problem because we've got lighting shining into neighbors' houses? Is this a problem because there's people outside after 10 p.m. on the golf course? Is this an issue for inside the clubhouse so and then with that I would suggest that we rewrite this so that it matches what our what this body's intent is or what the intent is of of the of what its actual intent is okay um so that was a it was a few items from Commissioner Holtz um I I see Commissioner Starling so let's go to Commissioner Starling and then maybe we can come

Thank you, Madam Chair. Building on what Commissioner Holst said, there's another version of this which would be golf courses shall not use their outdoor lighting after 10 p.m. So is the question of 10 p.m. around noise or lighting? I don't think it's the activities as written because as written it says if there is a golf course that has no lighting, then they can do whatever. And I don't think that starts to feel inequitable.

I see Commissioner Tejiaf. I think I'm supportive of the direction Commissioner Starling is moving in. Commissioner Tejiaf.

I agree. I think to try and speculate, it's probably the assumption that unlit golf courses could not operate anyway. So that's probably the two are together. It's the sense that if you light it, that enables you to go past the loss of light and therefore you need to regulate the time you could do it. That would seem to be the most logical reason it's written that way. But again, I'm speculating.

I did see the director sort of move closer. And I don't know if that was in preparation to respond or if there are additional notes. It's up to you. OK. If you want to just hang out, we can keep working through it. Or if there's something you want to add, feel free.

No. You remind me of the question. I'm sorry.

I think we're all circling around D with the lighting and just making sure we're not adding any uses that we're not thinking of or disallowing some uses that currently exist. with the language that we're adding there. And Commissioner Starling is maybe talking about reframing it because really D is all about the lights and maybe trying to specify that golf courses that are equipped with night lighting for night use should not use their night lighting after 10 p.m., something along those lines.

Yeah. I would just reiterate that our only intention at this time is the Highland driving range. and the winter activities that happen in that space as well. So there is no plan to light an entire golf course or anything else in the future. So just want to note that, that it's specific to the range.

Commissioner Holtz.

So one of the challenges I think we run into as a commission is we're, although it may apply just to the driving course or intentionally, is that when we write it, it applies to everything everywhere, right? So when we change zoning, we realize like, well, we might want this cute little shop in here, but it can also apply to the next and the next and the next and the next and the next. So when we write something, we want to be pretty careful that, you know, we consider most case studies. And I think... sort of the question, at least I'd want to ask, and maybe others on the commission would want to know as well, is the intent here to make sure... Well, I guess, I mean, it seems like this has been considered in the scope within the driving range, but maybe it hasn't been considered within the scope around golf courses in a broader perspective in the city of St. Paul. And, you know, 30 years from now when we're not here, you know, we want to still make sure this still kind of makes sense. They can go ahead and fix it then if they want to, but we want to kind of make sure that it fits for all use cases for all golf courses. And if we want it limited just to the driving range, then we write it just for the driving range. Right, so...

We're not at the point of making motions, but I'm just gonna say something out loud that could be a potential for D. if people were discussing it. We could say something along the lines of golf courses shall not operate night use lights after 10 p.m. And that might narrow the scope of what we were discussing just back down to the lights, which was the use of D to begin with.

Sure. Oh, sorry. outdoor activities i just want to make sure that we're we we don't restrict say an indoor activity like the parking lots like like you'd mentioned at night for example like if the clubhouse was open to 11 that that we could still have the lights on in the parking lot for example i i just want to it's something we touched on a little bit earlier so golf courses shall not operate outdoor night use lights after 10 p.m it's getting a little wordy

Yeah, Director. Thanks, Chair. I think Director Rodriguez, the intent of Director Rodriguez's text here is, you know, as he's mentioned, specifically for the driving range. So we could make this very, very specific to the driving range. So we could say, you know, lighting at, you know, Gulf driving ranges limited to, 10 p.m. Would that affect the operation of any other parts of the golf course or if there was a restaurant or a club?

No, no. It's just specific to the range, and the clubhouse is a considerable distance from the driving range and everything else, so I consider that kind of a separate piece within the site.

Just a suggestion I wanted to throw out for you to chew on.

Just to complicate things, there are lights that are used in the winter for Como when the golf course is used for skiing. So if we narrow it to, there's still the question of is it still a golf course if it's covered with snow? It's probably a question for Josh. But anyway.

So the facility is always a golf course, correct? The land is called a golf course no matter what activity you do on the golf course. And Como is currently limited to the 10 PM lighting rule?

Correct, yeah. The lights don't, I think, go off around 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock at the latest. That's a primary ski location for the city of St. Paul, our only public ski location. And then at Highland, within the confines of the range, you have cross-country ski trails and other things.

All right, I see Commissioner Riley, then Commissioner Holtz.

I was gonna try and come up with a motion to lay it over, but I guess I don't know. Here are some things that I would like to make sure comes back to us, something that allows all three golf facilities to have lights for whatever use they might need them to use in the future, right? So we have three, three? We still have three golf courses? Okay, four.

And this would apply to public and private.

Right, because there's one private, but we have three. I'm more concerned about ours. Highland, Como, and Phelan. Right, and so in the future, because I wrote down some more policies that I think could apply to the resolution here. I'd like to see something that comes forward that would allow there to be lighted golf and or ski facilities of some sort at those three publicly owned, if not run, golf courses that limits the time that outdoor activities can take place If that means it just refers back to our parks ordinance, that seems reasonable as well, rather than complicating things in the zoning code to Commissioner Hulse's point. So I want everybody to be able to have lights. I want those lights to not impact the people around them. I mean, right now you could go to Phelan and you can use the new lights that the county put on 61 because that is nuts. I hate it every day. Me too. that sort of ties to the city's noise ordinance, the lighting standards that we already have, because I think that's clear in the memo, right, that the lights will have to meet the city's light standards, but let's just make sure that whatever we get in front of us, we understand that those things are being met with the intent of this, and if the council's okay waiting, although it sounds like they're not, because they want lights to be able to happen for the rest of the, calendar year, if there's a way we can get this out of here with that information and everybody can agree that that's kind of what we want, we don't want neighbors impacted and we want the parks to be able to operate the way they want, maybe that's our recommendation.

So I do want to flag, we're talking about, and to all your points, Commissioner Riley, I agree. We are talking about four conditions within only the golf course section. And we know that in all the other sections of the code, we are, and particularly in the parks area, we're dealing with a lot of these things already. I think we're talking narrowly about the zoning portion, and we're really talking specifically about the lights. So I think if we open this up to other things, then we're opening up other sections, other documents, other areas that are maybe outside of our, not outside of our purview entirely, but I think outside of the scope of maybe what we're here to discuss today.

Agreed. There are golf courses that have driving ranges and no lights, and that have skiers and no lights. And so I want to make sure that in our rules for golf courses, all of them, even though the intent here is for Highland to operate a driving range, not all of the golf courses are amenitized in the same way. So I don't want to inadvertently create a situation where they can't be in the future in the zoning code.

So if we generalize to golf courses, so we don't do anything else because the facility itself is a golf course, So golf courses, the facility, shall not operate night use lights or public operate, a specific phrase for the lights for the exterior for people to use for outdoor activities after 10 p.m. Does that meet the overall lighting goal there? Because then that doesn't dictate other activities, it's just the facility and the time. Commissioner Holtz.

So I think Director Robinson actually, I think, made this pretty simple for us in a lot of ways. I mean, we just changed golf courses to driving range. The only driving, excuse me, may I ask a question? The only driving range, public or private, in the city of St. Paul is at Highland, is that correct? Okay, we got a yes from Parks and Rec, and we got a no from Commissioner Riley. Go ahead.

What happened to the driving range at Phelan?

Phelan has... I classify Highland in a different category of driving range, like from a revenue standpoint and other things, but if you want to get technical, we have two, yes. Technically, there's two.

They are very different.

Very different setup. I'd say Highland is a lot more formal in terms of how it proposed.

Back to my original point, though, and agreeing again with Director Robinson, ultimately, I I don't know if we need to put restrictions on golf courses overall. I don't know that we're having a problem or a complaint or an issue. We just got a concern around the driving range, so can't we just change golf courses to driving ranges that are equipped with lighting for night use, shall not operate after 10 p.m., and then put a period on it?

Commissioner Holtz, I think other folks here maybe don't want to reopen the issue of lighting. Would it come back again? or if it's used for other purposes. So limiting it to driving range maybe means that we might be having this conversation again in the future. While it seems like it might not come back, I think folks are trying to sort of open and close the door at the same go.

I hear what you're saying. If we're having complaints around it, I'm not aware of it, but I don't follow it.

Commissioner Starling.

My concern about Commissioner Hulse's comment is that if we call out driving ranges in the text, then anything else does not have restrictions on anything other than whatever citywide noise and lighting code there are. So if we're ready for language, I would suggest that this be golf courses shall not use any outdoor lights for night use outdoor activities after 10 p.m. Well, I'm going to pause there.

Put me on the spot? Yes. Can you read it again? I mean, it's only a recommendation.

I'm looking at the red text version. Golf courses shall not use outdoor lighting for night use. So it's moving the shall not for outdoor activities after 10 p.m. What's tripping me is that as it's written, it is limited to the golf courses that have the lighting as opposed to any golf course using lighting for activities.

So I kind of liked it better when we were just focusing on the light and we just wanted the lights to be turned off. Yes. That's what I'm trying to get to. We weren't making references to outdoor activities such as like cleaning.

Golf courses shall not operate night use lights. I have a version. Golf courses shall not use their outdoor lighting after 10 p.m. Is that too general though?

I think that has the, I'm sorry, Chair.

Yeah, Commissioner Riley.

I just don't wanna cause a problem with the parking lots. So perhaps it's golf course lighting, I don't know, golf course lighting for recreational activities. That way you're specifically looking at the activity and not at the light or the use. To be honest, why can't we just strike D altogether and forward that to the city council and let the rules associated with the city's lighting and sound and everything, because we do everything by complaint-based anyway, do? Because really the problem is that we can't light them. Take out the clause and we can light them and then we can set rules for how they get, policies and procedures we have to follow for lights.

I think there was some interest in limiting the lights to 10. I think I'd rather not strike it. Obviously, it's up to the body. I see Anton as well.

Chair, in response to Commissioner Riley's suggestion, I just wanted to point out that we have lighting for outdoor activities all over the city. Every rec center, golf, not golf course. Turf fields. Yeah.

Baseball.

Baseball fields.

Do those have, so may I ask a question of the department director? do all of the sections of, or perhaps this is for Mr. Jervie, I'm not sure. So we have a lot of different kinds of parks and recreation spaces in the city of St. Paul. Most of them have had lighting added over time. things happen in the parks even at night. This parks department has to get its own noise variances if it's going to be loud, right, like they don't just get special dispensation. So is there some other facility, for example, the, you know, the turf field off Maryland and Rice Street or, right, so Arlington Fields or any of those are great, all those things. Is there language for those kinds of facilities that you can borrow? that would match, that way they're all the same and this one just has golf courses whereas the other ones have turf or baseball or whatever. And then if there's not, that then I think gives credence to the suggestion that we just take this clause out altogether.

Yeah, we don't regulate them in zoning. It's an operations question. Parks has their own public process that they go through when they update operations at parks. It's transparent, it's accountable through city council and the mayor's office. I, from a zoning standpoint, I don't see a problem with just deleting, recommending to delete D altogether.

I do want to flag that went to the Highland District Council, and part of what they signed off on includes D, and their recommendation includes D. Without going back to them, I just want to flag that that was part of the recommendation from the District Council in the area that might be impacted by it. I don't know if the time impacted their decision making, but I do want to flag that. Commissioner Starling.

I would like to make a motion.

Great.

I would like to make a motion to, our verb is to adopt proposed, adopt the proposed language in front of us for the text amendment to section 65.230 section C and delete subsection D. Second.

There's a motion and a second, so a motion by Commissioner Stalling, second by Commissioner Riley. I do see the Secretary rapidly taking notes, so I'm gonna pause for a second. Is there discussion on the motion? Commissioner Riley.

To your point, Chair, thank you, and to your point, Chair, about the Highland District Council's recommendation, I very much appreciate their... resolution and I'm really happy that they participated in the process and had time to do that. And I believe that you know, they were given something to react to, and if they would like to have the time limit brought back, they can come and comment at the actual public hearing. So that would just be sort of my thought. I don't mean to dismiss the recommendation at all, and I think they'll have another opportunity to bring that forward, and perhaps the council is better positioned to make that decision. So, thank you.

Any other discussion on the motion? Commissioner Martinson.

Thank you, Chair. So I appreciate the idea of removing Clause D, but my concern about it is that I think this is gonna lead to an enormous amount of pushback from I'm thinking back to the public hearings that we had when the lighting went in down at that driving range and the amount of public testimony that came from people from around the golf course. So I do think my worry is if we remove it completely and we don't say anything about have setting some sort of 10 PM limit. I like a 10 PM limit because it sets a consistency across seasons. And as someone who doesn't experience these spaces as golf courses, but as skiing facilities, I'm not opening this topic now, but I think we may, it might warrant being opened at some point to ask whether or not the zoning code should be referencing these as park spaces that are used for golf and skiing purposes, as opposed to referring to them as golf courses, As far as I'm concerned, they're not golf courses. They're skiing facilities. So separate issue. But I worry that if we don't set a limit on 10 o'clock, which is a consistent thing across seasons for skiing or for golfing, that leaves things open for seasonality and for I think we're going to get a lot of pushback from the public. So that's why I don't think I'm going to support removing that clause. Sorry.

And I think similar to Commissioner Martinson's comments, I think the nine o'clock closing, the 10 o'clock, we're using nine to 10 as cleanup. I think some of that also for the folks that are surrounding facilities might find that helpful. And so I also am concerned about the removal of it just for the comfort of people participating in the discussion already and then the users around the facility.

Commissioner Riley. I can appreciate that neighbors of recreational facilities might have concerns and what I hear is an interest in protecting those feelings, the feelings of people who chose to live near these sites over the need of the city to do its job and to treat something very different from all the other things that are very similar that are lit. And so I find it frustrating that people want to treat a golf course different from all the other lighted facilities that we have in the city when making an ordinance change. And I would suggest that that is not what ordinances are supposed to do. They should treat similar things similarly And if we are going to consider golf courses different from all other things, then we should be considering all those other things separately and distinctly. And I would hope that we would get amendments to future code language associated with outdoor recreation that has a similar provision to it because otherwise we're just protecting people's feelings. We are supposed to be talking about facts.

Director, a question. Say we pass this, say we pass this without D on it. I mean, to what degree is the city council advised as to the reasoning of the planning commission as to why they did something, right? In other words, oh, here it is, they scratched it out. Or is there, I presume, but I'd like to hear, there's like some discussion and hey, we talked about this, we talked about that, we talked about the other thing. And at the end of the day, they decided that X, Y, Z because of ABC. Is my second scenario more accurate?

Chair, Commissioner Holst, yes. So this process, we will take any comments, edits, et cetera, information that the planning commission resolves to send to the planning commission to the city council, we will explain it to them. I think we can attach a memo that provides us some summary of the discussion. I also know that most of the city council members regularly watch planning commission videos so that they can understand the essence of the conversation. So we will we will try to do our best to get as much context of what this conversation entailed to them. I also think this is, I think I'm actually really enjoying this conversation. This is very bizarrely fun for me.

That's why we're here.

You know, something like this on its face can seem simple, but when you get into it, there's a lot of nuance and complexity and questions. So I'm really happy that you've all been exploring all of that and thinking about it. Wanted to provide a note on schedule. So the next meeting, the next Planning Commission meeting is July 17th. And so if today is not the day where there's consensus, I think that's okay. And we can get to, we can punt it to the next meeting and maybe some questions could be answered. Or if it works out today, that's also fine. And we'd be able to get those comments to the council in time for the public hearing that they're going to hold.

Thank you for answering that question. And sort of to, I guess, dovetail on Commissioner Riley's comments, you know, I'm leaning towards the all or none and you know, it's, you know, the director of parks and rec should be able to manage the lighting at the various facilities without maybe the direct input of the planning commission. And if we find out that it's too much of a problem, then we want to do it broadly, but not piecemeal. Right. So kind of seconding, I guess, essentially commissioner Riley's comments.

In the same vein, it seems like the original language was in there that says we don't want to like golf courses for night use. That was to regulate use of facilities later, you know, when the technology came in or whatever. And I think the reason it's been modified, the reason the Highland History Council have weighed in, et cetera, is because they looked at that and said, yeah, that's something we want. It sounds like the discussion today has said that this control they're looking for, this, you know, restriction spillover exists elsewhere in the code, and we don't have a solid legislative reason to regulate golf courses differently from any other outdoor facility. Therefore, with appropriate commentary to City Council, yes, we struck it, but we did it because this D is already covered elsewhere in the code, and we didn't see a reason to specifically regulate. Seems like a reasonable way forward to get us there today instead of in mid-July. So I'll be supportive of the motion as written.

Okay, thanks, Commissioner Taggiaff. So... I think with that, other folks here are gonna be comfortable. I think just the note around this was what the discussion was and there were sort of mixed feelings here I think is helpful for briefing the city council. But yeah, I can come around for that. Other questions, comments?

I'd like to make a comment. If you look at the history of golf and golf courses, they were exclusive to white men. And as they evolved over time and technologies evolved with lighting and what have you, we have this old language that was very exclusive for white men and not anyone else. And now golf is embraced by a much more diverse community. And for the city's sake, it does bring economic benefit. And so I don't think that golf courses should be treated any differently than a soccer field or a baseball field or any other outdoor activity. I think that is a reflection and a remnant of a very exclusive and white male centered sport. And so therefore, I support striking D. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments before I move forward with the vote? All right, seeing none, we can move forward. I don't think we need to do a roll call. We'll find out.

All those in favor? Aye.

All those opposed? Any abstentions? All right, the item passes. So the recommendation, we'll move forward with the city council, with DSTRC, but we'll include some commentary from the commission on our discussion. Thank you everyone for that item.

We still have stuff on our agenda though, don't leave. I saw people getting excited.

Next up is site plan review. The site plan review committee meeting scheduled for June 23rd was canceled. The next regularly scheduled meeting was Tuesday, June 30th. And there are items on that agenda. The first being 2400 Child's Road, It's quite a few things, so I'll let you look at the item, but it looks like addition, expansion, partial demolition, and site work. And then 209 Page Street West, new construction, restroom and storage facility. And that is site plan review. And then next steps are announcements. There are no announcements from the chair this week. Director? No announcements from the director. And with that, we are adjourned.